SACRAMENTO—A sternly worded ruling from a federal judge in California has found that Nexstar violated a preliminary injunction pausing completion of its acquisition of Tegna. The judge also ordered the station group to remove its employees from Tegna’s board of directors.

“Defendants cannot convincingly argue that having Nexstar executives serve on Tegna’s Board complies with the preliminary injunction,” ruled Judge Troy Nunley in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. “Defendants’ hyper-technical reading that the Order does not contain a similar prohibition on Nexstar employees or officers serving as Tegna directors is entirely disingenuous — especially given that the Order refers to officers because that is how Nexstar worded its modification request. It is clearly the spirit of the preliminary injunction that Nexstar executives would be prohibited from serving as not just Tegna officers, but Tegna directors as well. It is shocking that Defendants think installing a Board of Directors comprised primarily of Nexstar executives would not create influence over Tegna management. This undermines Tegna as an independent entity and violates the preliminary injunction.”

Judge Nunley in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is presiding over an antitrust case brought against the $6.2 billion Nextstar/Tegna deal by by DirecTV, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, State of Oregon, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia.

In the August 5 order, which became publicly available on August 6, Judge Nunley also required that Nexstar must reconstitute Tegna's board to exclude Nexstar employees. Within 10 days, Nexstar must also file a status report identifying its actions to ensure compliance with Judge Nunley’s preliminary injunction and within 7 days, Nexstar must comply with the plaintiffs’ outstanding discovery requests regarding compliance.

In the future, Nunley also ruled that Nexstar must provide monthly financial and other reports, as requested by plaintiffs to ensure compliance with the preliminary injunction and that within 14 days, Nexstar and plaintiffs must jointly file a stipulation and proposed order appointing a Special Master to oversee compliance with the preliminary injunction.

The Judge also admonished Nexstar for not notifying the court that it had appointed Nexstar executives to the board.

“Through the instant motion, the Court has learned for the first time that, on the very day the motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) was filed, three Nexstar officials were appointed to TEGNA’s Board,” the Judge complained. “Yet, Defendants never disclosed this material information to the Court — not in briefing on the TRO, not in their TRO compliance report, not in seeking modification of the TRO, not during the preliminary injunction hearing, nor in the months following the preliminary injunction. Defendants repeatedly failed to disclose material information to this Court, declined to seek Court guidance or relief, and then publicly declared that the Court had “approved” their actions.”

In response to the ruling, Nexstar issued a statement saying "We will comply with the Court’s order, including its requirements regarding TEGNA’s Board and the compliance process going forward. We remain focused on defending the transaction on the merits and strengthening local broadcasting for communities across America.”

NEW YORK—Paramount Global has reached an agreement with 12 state attorneys general to delay its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery. The agreement puts the $111 billion deal on hold until a judge rules on the states’ antitrust lawsuit or the trial concludes in June 2027.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order July 20, pausing the case until she rules on a preliminary injunction that would halt the merger pending a trial.

The new agreement extends the temporary restraining order for another 14 days and means that Paramount won’t be able to close the deal until at least Aug. 18 at the earliest and possibly much longer.

If the court finds in favor of the states and issues a preliminary injunction, the deal could be delayed until completion of a trial in June of 2027.

“Our argument against this illegal merger is straightforward: When too few corporations have too much power in markets central to American life, it makes things more expensive, and it makes things worse,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is one of the AGs who filed the antitrust lawsuit. “Today’s agreement is great news for audiences, movie theaters and the many people who write, build, and create the art, news, and entertainment so many of us enjoy. We are eager to continue to make our case in court and celebrate another tremendous win in our effort to ensure this unlawful merger never sees the light of day.”

The deal was approved by the Trump administration’s Department of Justice but attorneys general from 12 states quickly sued to stop the merger on grounds that it would violate federal antitrust law, leading to higher prices for film and cable audiences and resulting in fewer movies and TV shows.

Delays in completing the merger until next stumer could be costly for Paramount and raised concerns on Wall Street about the future of the deal. Shares in Paramount Global fell by 3.3% on July 24.

Paramount, however, called the agreement a “significant win.”

“The result is exactly what we have sought from the outset: a direct path to a trial based on the evidence,” it said in a statement. “This is the fastest and clearest way to prove that this transaction is good for competition, good for consumers, and good for creators, a conclusion dozens of competition authorities around the world have already reached. Plaintiffs’ market definitions bear no relationship to the realities of today’s marketplace and cannot withstand scrutiny. We look forward to proving our case at trial.”

LOS ANGELES—The proposed $110 billion merger between Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Skydance faces a new legal challenge with the filing of an antitrust lawsuit by 12 attorneys general.

The antitrust lawsuit alleges that the deal could reduce theatrical film production, harm movie theaters and give the combined company the power to raise programming prices for cable channels. All of the attorneys general are Democrats.

In response a spokesperson for Paramount derided the lawsuit as "a fundamentally flawed application of the antitrust laws" that "is wrong on both the facts and the law."

Paramount also defended the deal for creating a larger company that could better compete with Netflix and big tech companies.

"The practical effect of this lawsuit is to shield those dominant streaming platforms like Netflix and technology companies from much needed competition while preventing the significant benefits this transaction will deliver for consumers, creators, workers, and the broader Hollywood economy," Paramount said.

In the lawsuit, the 12 attorneys general argue that the proposed merger, the largest in Hollywood history, would combine two of Hollywood’s five major film distributors and two of the five major basic cable channel owners, extinguishing competition between Paramount and Warner Bros., and inflicting substantial harm on movie theaters, basic cable distributors and, ultimately, audiences nationwide. In the U.S. alone, if allowed to merge, the combined titan would control nearly one-third of theatrical motion pictures, and nearly one-third of basic cable programming.

In a statement, California attorney general Rob Bonta said “the unlawful merger of these two entertainment behemoths would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and less content for film and television, harming movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the U.S…Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences.”

The lawsuit highlights growing antitrust activism by states in response to what they see as weak enforcement by the Trump administration. The Trump Department of Justice quickly approved the merger.

California and some of the other states involved in the Paramount/WBD suit are also involved in an antitrust Federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of California that has temporarily halted the Nexstar/Tegna merger. That lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in July of 2027.

If this suit causes similar delays, it would be costly for Paramount, which has promised to pay shareholders $650 million for each quarter the deal is delayed beyond October.

In this lawsuit, attorney general Bonta leads a coalition of the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington as plaintiffs.

In response to the suit, the Writers Guild of America applauded the attorneys general and said "The merger of two of the largest Hollywood studios will reduce competition in our industry, leading to fewer jobs, lower wages for entertainment workers, less variety of programming, and higher prices for consumers."

In its defense of the deal Paramount also noted that "We will vigorously defend the transaction and demonstrate that this challenge is inconsistent with sound competition policy and the competitive realities of the media marketplace. Delaying this transaction will only harm entertainment workers who have already suffered over recent years as technology has disrupted their livelihood and cost California tens of thousands of entertainment jobs."

"The combination of Paramount and WBD will create a stronger, well-capitalized, creative-first media company that is better positioned to compete with companies like Netflix that have come to dominate the industry for audiences, premium content, and creative talent.," the statement continued. "Put simply, any attempt to block this transaction undermines the very principles antitrust law is designed to promote: more competition, more choice for consumers, and more opportunities for creators and workers."

The full filing is available here.

WASHINGTON—The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has approved the proposed $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) by Paramount Skydance, saying “the impact of the transaction will be to increase competition across the media and entertainment ecosystem, with benefits for American consumers and workers.”

The deal still faces possible opposition from the European Union, which has not yet concluded its investigation, from state Attorneys General. California Attorney General Rob Bonta is still reviewing the deal and could still file a lawsuit to block it, as state AGs did in the case of the Nexstar/Tegna deal, which also passed reviews by the DoJ and the Federal Communications Commission.

After an eight month investigation that involved reviewing more than 2 million documents, the Antitrust Division issued a statement late Friday June 12 noting that “based on the evidence received in its investigation that the transaction is not likely to result in harm to competition or American consumers, including with respect to: (1) streaming video on demand (SVOD); (2) linear television; and (3) studio development, production, or distribution of films for theatrical release.”

In terms of the streaming marketplace, the Division reported that the “evidence reviewed and carefully analyzed by the Division indicates that, post-merger, competition in SVOD is not likely to be harmed. To the contrary, the combined firm is likely to increase competition by offering consumers a more robust competitive alternative to the larger SVOD offerings.”

One of the more controversial aspects of the merger was its potential impact on Hollywood production and employment. “The substantial body of evidence available to the Division indicates that the transaction is not likely to harm competition in studio development, production, or distribution of films for theatrical release,” the DoJ argued in a statement. “Instead, the evidence shows extensive competition within the industry, which has generated greater output and diversity of film offerings, and is likely to continue unabated. In fact, even since the transaction was announced, the evidence shows competition for theatrical production and distribution has increased. Smaller studios have turned to innovative content development and distribution strategies to challenge traditional assumptions regarding the conditions necessary for successful theatrical release. Indeed, this remains true looking even at narrow categories like “tentpole” or `blockbuster’ theatrical production and distribution.”

The full statement is available here.

Five more attorneys general, including two Republicans, have joined the antitrust lawsuit seeking to block the $6.2 billion dollar merger of Nexstar Media Group and Tegna, expanding the plaintiffs to a total of 13 states.

The AGs also filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The deal was approved by the Federal Communications Commission and Justice Department, but it is on hold after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction halting the transaction while litigation proceeds.

“Antitrust enforcement is not political—it’s about protecting working families and helping ensure the benefits of a vibrant economy are for everyone, not just well-connected corporations,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in announciing the additional plaintiffs. “Today, five additional states join us in our challenge of the Nexstar/Tegna merger, now making this lawsuit a bipartisan effort.

“This is not controversial stuff—this merger is illegal and will give Nexstar and Tegna the ability to control and raise prices, fire journalists and dominate the media landscape,” Bonta continued. “State attorneys general nationwide understand just how important robust antitrust enforcement is to American life, and what a rotten deal this is for consumers, for workers, for affordability and for our local news. We welcome our sister states into the fray and look forward to fighting alongside them.”

Following the filing of the original complaint by eight AGs, all Democrats, on March 18, a judge in the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction halting the merger.

That injunction followed a temporary restraining order granted in a challenge brought by DirecTV. The court has consolidated the states’ case with DirecTV’s related case. Defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Nexstar’s opening brief is due May 20.

In filing the amended complaint, the state coalition now includes the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Virginia.

In response, Nexstar issued a statement: “By aligning with private equity-backed DirecTV, these misguided attorneys general are strangling local journalism—the most trusted source of independent, fact-based news available to Americans. The AGs, none of whom has a track record of advocating for local media, would do well to understand the industry they purport to protect. They should also recognize the binding commitments Nexstar has made to increase the amount of local news coverage in many markets, including today's settlement with the Ohio Attorney General. And they should be far more wary of the real drivers of the decline of local news: the unchecked rise of Big Tech platforms, the spread of misinformation on social media, and the economic pressures that have already led to widespread newsroom closures. Tellingly, none of them appeared on local broadcast news to discuss this issue, but their social media posts were immediate.

“In today’s media landscape, multibillion-dollar technology companies compete directly with local broadcasters while facing none of the same ownership, reach, or size constraints, putting untenable pressure on the economic model that supports local news,” the statement continued. “The alternative to this deal is not more independently owned outlets—it’s the demise of your local broadcast station.”

WASHINGTON—The NAB has filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission outlining a host of problems that have been created by the shift of sports rights from free broadcasts to subscription-based streaming services.

The filing also outlined a number of measures, including ending station ownership caps and supporting the NextGen TV transition, that would improve access to free sports programming.

“From the viewer’s standpoint, there is no question that a model that once served both sports leagues and viewers is now underserving the average fan,” the NAB complained in the March 27 comments. “Global streaming behemoths like Amazon Prime, Alphabet (Google/YouTube), Apple, and Netflix, able to use live sports programming as a loss leader, have restricted access to sports programming using multiple paywalls, effectively forcing fans to use Gantt [product management] charts to locate their favorite team on television while being forced to subscribe to multiple services to do so. Watching televised sports has morphed from being an experience that bound us together to a maddening one that hurts the entire video ecosystem.”

To address that problem, the NAB urged the FCC to: reexamine antitrust exemptions that allow major professional sports leagues like the NFL to collectively negotiate media rights; end station ownership caps that make it harder for broadcasters to compete; and enact regulations that would speed the transition to the new broadcast standard NextGen TV/ATSC 3.0 that offers much better visual and audio for sports programming.

The NAB made those proposals at a time when some studies have found viewers would need to pay upwards of $2,500 and subscribe to multiple apps to be able to follow their favorite teams.

In response to that issue, FCC Chair Brendan Carr has already warned the NFL and other major professional sports leagues that they are in danger of losing their antitrust exemptions. Without those exemptions, teams would be subject to normal antitrust rules and would have to negotiate deals themselves.

“Since the decline of cable RSNs starting in 2023, some larger broadcast TV station groups have acquired rights, especially local rights, to air some live sports, including some MLB, NHL, NBA, WNBA, and NWSL games, to the benefit of local viewers,” the filing notes. “But broadcasters, prevented by outdated ownership rules from achieving national reach and greater local scale, cannot effectively compete with unregulated platforms for very costly live sports programming.”

The NAB also stressed that “One of the most impactful actions the Commission can take to help broadcast TV stations better compete for premium live sports content is to modernize its rules supporting the transition to the ATSC 3.0 standard. As the Commission has recognized, the ATSC 3.0 standard is poised to deliver substantial benefits to viewers across the country. Relevant to live sports, the ATSC 3.0 standard delivers sharper picture quality, richer and more immersive audio, enhanced accessibility features and interactive applications that promote viewer engagement with live sports programming – all for free over-the-air.”

While a number of broadcasters have already launched 3.0 signals offering better quality broadcasts, the NAB warned that the FCC needs to require all new sets to be ATSC 3.0 capable and that the regulator needs to set a firm cut off the ATSC 1.0 broadcasts. “A sunset date is a critical focal point that will align all ecosystem parties to make concrete plans to adopt the standard; without it, the transition could sputter and stall.”

“Live sports and broadcast TV have long gone hand in hand, with each strengthening the other,” the filing concluded. “That relationship has not only benefited both parties, it has also served the public well by bringing communities together and helping support local news and other programming on broadcast TV. But that is starting to change. More premium live sports are moving behind paywalls, and that shift is eroding longstanding public benefits. Big Tech platforms and global pureplay streamers with tens of billions of dollars of revenue to spend are not focused on strengthening local communities, but on selling products and adding subscribers. That is why policymakers are right to take a close look at this changing marketplace, and why the Commission can and should take concrete steps now to begin addressing the problem.”

The full filing is available here.

In a ruling that could have a major impact on the digital advertising market, a federal judge has ruled that Google has monopolized some types of advertising technologies in violation of U.S. antitrust laws and used that market power to illegally dominate the online ad market.

The U.S. Department of Justice and eight states filed the case against Google in January 2023. Eventually, nine more states, for a total of 17, joined the Justice Department in filing an amended complaint. They accused Google of illegally leveraging its control over various ad tech tools to unfairly favor its own products and harm competition. The ruling was made after a three-week bench trial.

“Plaintiffs have proven that Google has willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising,” Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in an April 17 opinion. “For over a decade, Google has tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contractual policies and technological integration, which enabled the company to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets. Google further entrenched its monopoly power by imposing anticompetitive policies on its customers and eliminating desirable product features. In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web. Accordingly, Google is liable under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.”

After the three-week bench trial and extensive post-trial filings, the Court did, however, reject one of the claims in the case, ruling that “Plaintiffs have failed to prove that there is a relevant market for open-web display advertiser ad networks.”

The ruling adds to the legal woes facing Google, which has dominated digital advertising in recent decades. Last August, Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google had abused a monopoly over the search business.

The rulings in those cases could lead to a breakup of Google, which is worth more than $1.8 trillion, and could lead to major changes in the online and digital advertising markets, which continue to grow at the expense of traditional media.

It is also part of increased regulatory pressure on “big tech” companies that includes a separate case against Facebook brought by the Federal Trade Commission that alleges Facebook operates an illegal monopoly. That antitrust case is currently being tried.

National Association of Broadcasters President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt applauded the ruling and expressed the organization’s hope that it might prompt action by the Federal Communications Commission to reduce regulations faced by broadcasters and create a more level playing field.

“Today’s decision affirms what local broadcasters and other publishers have long known: Google has used its dominance in the online advertising marketplace to disadvantage content creators and tilt the playing field,” LeGeyt said.

“We commend the Department of Justice for taking on this critical case," he continued. "As policymakers and regulators consider the implications of this ruling, we urge them to recognize that the same Big Tech dominance harming digital publishers is also undermining the advertising revenue local broadcasters rely on to serve their communities. We are encouraged that the FCC, under Chairman [Brendan] Carr’s leadership, is taking steps to modernize its rules and look forward to swift action that begins to level the competitive playing field.”

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has asked the U.S. Dept. of Justice to “closely scrutinize” Disney’s acquisition of FuboTV, expressing concerns that the deal could violate antitrust law and lead to higher subscription prices.

The deal, announced last month, resolves a lawsuit that Fubo filed in February 2024 against Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros. Discovery, which at the time collectively controlled more than 80% of nationally broadcast sports. A federal judge found that the three companies’ joint venture, Venu Sports, likely violated antitrust law.

In a letter sent to Omeed Assefi, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division this week, Warren said that Disney’s proposed acquisition of Fubo “appears to allow Disney to simultaneously circumvent the negative outcome of the lawsuit while eliminating a competitor.”

“This proposed acquisition raises significant concerns under antitrust law, would give Disney increased market power and incentives to increase costs for viewers, and should be regarded as another data point in Disney’s history of anticompetitive behavior,” wrote Sen. Warren. “I urge DOJ not to be fooled by Disney’s attempt to purchase its way around antitrust law, and to closely scrutinize this proposed acquisition.”

Warren first raised concerns about Venu Sports in August 2024. Later that month, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York enjoined the launch of that venture. Shortly after Disney appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division filed an amicus brief supporting the District Court’s findings that Venu Sports would have anticompetitive effects on the market.

“Disney’s proposed acquisition of Fubo is inextricably linked to the company’s attempt to dominate the sports streaming marketplace through Venu Sports” Warren said in a statement. “Disney directly competes with Fubo through Hulu + Live TV. Since acquiring Hulu in 2019, Disney has raised the price of Hulu + Live TV by 85%, from $45 per month to $82.99 per month, while using its market power to lead competitors to raise prices as well. If the takeover of Fubo is successful, Disney will only increase its leverage, and could use the reduced competition and the resultant market power to raise prices even further for sports fans across the country.”

Warren urged the DOJ to terminate the deal if it thinks antitrust laws have been broken.

“Disney has proposed a plan to acquire its competitor, and, in the process become an even more powerful force in an already highly-concentrated market,” she wrote. “I urge DOJ to continue [its] work on behalf of viewers by closely scrutinizing this proposed deal and blocking it if it violates antitrust law.”

LOS ANGELES—A jury in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California has ordered the NFL to pay nearly $4.8 billion in damages in an antitrust case alleging that consumers and businesses were forced to overpay for the NFL’s Sunday Ticket package of out-of-market games. 

The damages include about $4.7 billion for residential subscribers and nearly $100 million for bars, restaurants and other businesses that subscribed to the package. In Federal antitrust cases damages can be tripled, which would bring the total to over $14.3 billion. 

The verdict came after a three-week trial and years of legal wrangling over the package of out-of-market games that was held by DirecTV until it was taken over by YouTube during the last season. 

NFL.com reported that the lawsuit involved “covered 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses in the United States who paid for the package of out-of-market games from the 2011 through 2022 seasons on DirecTV.”

The plaintiffs in the case argued that the NFL had abused its market power to artificially restrict competition and raise the cost of the package, which ran about $300. 

"We are disappointed with the jury's verdict today in the NFL Sunday Ticket class action lawsuit," the league said in a statement. "We continue to believe that our media distribution strategy, which features all NFL games broadcast on free over-the-air television in the markets of the participating teams and national distribution of our most popular games, supplemented by many additional choices including RedZone, Sunday Ticket and NFL+, is by far the most fan friendly distribution model in all of sports and entertainment.”

"We will certainly contest this decision as we believe that the class action claims in this case are baseless and without merit,” the statement added. 

NEW YORK—FuboTV Inc. has filed an antitrust lawsuit against The Walt Disney Company, Fox Corp., Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. and their affiliates, alleging that the three media giants have engaged in a years-long campaign to block Fubo’s sports-first streaming business resulting in significant harm to both Fubo and consumers. The complaint alleges that the forthcoming launch of a sports-streaming joint venture is the latest example of this campaign.

Fubo TV initially raised antitrust issues shortly after Disney, Fox and WBD announced plans to launch a massive sports streaming services in the fall of 2024 and has now followed up on those complaints with a wide ranging antitrust lawsuit. It claims that the defendants have engaged in a long-running pattern of stymying Fubo’s sports-first streaming service by engaging in anti-competitive practices. 

“For decades, Defendants have leveraged their iron grip on sports content to extract billions of dollars in supra-competitive profits” by engaging in practices causing consumers to pay more for highly popular sports content and resulting in significant damages to both Fubo and its customers,” the complaint said. 

In the complaint Fubo alleges that the defendants engaged in a number of tactics to prevent Fubo from competing fairly in the marketplace, including unfair “bundling”, which forced Fubo to carry dozens of expensive non-sports channels that Fubo’s customers do not want as a condition of licensing the Defendants’ sports channels. 

Other examples of anti-competitive behavior cited in the complaint include the defendants charging Fubo content licensing rates that are as much as 30%-50%+ higher than rates they charge other distributors. Defendants also impose non-market penetration requirements (the percentage of total subscribers to which a content package must be sold to or cannot exceed) on Fubo, the complaint alleged.  

Fubo said that it believes it has incurred billions of dollars in damages as a result of the Defendants’ actions. 

Fubo described the recently announced joint venture as simply the latest coordinated step in the Defendants’ campaign to eliminate competition in the sports-first streaming market and capture this market for themselves.

The complaint also argues that the Defendants control more than half of the U.S. sports rights market. By combining to license their must-have sports content on a standalone basis to their own joint venture, other distributors, including Fubo, would be at an extreme competitive disadvantage to the detriment of millions of U.S. consumers, according to the complaint.

The complaint was filed in Federal Court in the Southern District of New York.

“Each of these companies has consistently engaged in anticompetitive practices that aim to monopolize the market, stifle any form of competition, create higher pricing for subscribers and cheat consumers from deserved choice,” David Gandler, co-founder and CEO, Fubo commented. “By joining together to exclusively reserve the rights to distribute a specialized live sports package, we believe these corporations are erecting insurmountable barriers that will effectively block any new competitors from entering the market. This strategy ensures that consumers desiring a dedicated sports channel lineup are left with no alternative but to subscribe to the Defendants’ joint venture.”

“We have previously collaborated with each of these companies so that we could offer ‘must-have’ sports content to Fubo customers,” he continued. “For many years, they have challenged our business at every opportunity through pernicious practices. While other new competitors were prevented from entering the market, Fubo has continuously fought back. The Defendants’ unconscionable practices have impacted our ability to grow and have deprived consumers of a compelling and competitively-priced product. Simply put, this sports cartel blocked our playbook for many years and now they are effectively stealing it for themselves.”

“Silence is no longer an option,” he concluded. “The fact that live sporting events dominated television viewership in 2023, with 97 of the top 100 broadcasts, highlights the critical importance of sports in entertainment and the necessity for its broad dissemination. Reports that the Department of Justice intends to look into the joint venture are encouraging, and it evidences the potential negative and widespread impact this alliance will have. Fubo seeks equal treatment in terms of pricing and all relevant conditions from these media giants to ensure we can compete fairly for the benefit of consumers. Our customers deserve access to a competitively priced offering with innovative features designed by Fubo for an unparalleled sports viewing experience.”

WASHINGTON—As expected, Gray Television has now received both FCC and Department of Justice approvals for its $3.6 billion acquisition of Raycom Media.

The FCC helped pave the way this week by dismissing a license challenge to Raycom stations in Honolulu, announcing its approval of the deal late Thursday.

The Media Bureau did not find MVPD objections to some of the station combos and the impact of the deal on retransmission consent negotiations persuasive, and said that the establishment of statewide news bureaus and Raycom stations' access to Gray's Washington, D.C., bureau as reasons the merger would be in the public interest.

The American Cable Association had wanted the FCC to condition the deal on Gray not being able to use after-acquired clauses to raise retrans fees at the stations it is spinning off before it divests them to a third party. The FCC said that since Gray told the commission it would not, that was good enough since Gray is "bound by the Commission's rules and character policy to deal truthfully with the Commission."

The FCC will allow Gray to retain two of the top four stations in Honolulu and Amarillo. In the case of Amarillo, the FCC said it is because one of the stations is usually not in the top four, but was in the last Nielsen book due to an anomalous circumstance. In the case of Honolulu, Raycom argued that Raycom has ramped-up news there, which using the Gray Washington bureau would bolster. The FCC agreed that breaking up the Raycom duopoly would cause more harm than good.

Under a recent reg change, while owning two of the top four stations in a market is still preemptively against FCC local ownership rules, it is a rebuttable presumption, which Gray has successfully rebutted in the case of Honolulu and Amarillo. NCTA-the Internet & Television Association had argued against allowing those combos.

But while there were calls for conditions and concerns expressed by cable and satellite operators, there were not petitions to deny the deal .

Gray says the plan is to close the deal by Jan. 1.

DOJ's approval of the deal last week pointed to its requirement that Gray spin off a bunch of stations, giving the suggestion it was a condition it had extracted, though giving Gray props for cooperating.

But Gray points out in its announcement of the dual DOJ/FCC approvals and closing date, that those stations were the same ones it identified back in June as necessary to comply with FCC duopoly rules and were already part of the deal as structured. "The regulatory consents include no unexpected or unusual terms and conditions," it pointed out.

The company will reach a combined 24% of the country, and Raycom will spin off over 100 local newspapers and the digital ad platform PureCars. But Gray will also be getting Raycom Sports; RTM Productions, an automotive media compan; and Broadview Media, a post-production and signage house.

Gray is divesting Raycom stations WTNZ Knoxville (Fox), WTOL Toledo (CBS), KXXV Waco (ABC), WTXL Tallahassee (ABC), WFXG Augusta(Fox), KWES Odessa (NBC), WGPX Panama City (Fox), WDFX Dothan (Fox), and Gray's WSWG Albany (CBS).

"The American Cable Association applauds the Federal Communications Commission for requiring Gray and Raycom to divest nine television stations in 'duopoly markets' as a condition of their merger," the cable trade said. "ACA is also pleased that, in approving the transaction, the FCC helped avoid the triggering of Gray’s 'after-acquired station' clauses with respect to Raycom stations to be divested."